cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Reinhard Pötz <reinhard_po...@gmx.net>
Subject RE: [Vote] Cocoon Advanced Control Flow
Date Wed, 09 Jul 2003 15:45:28 GMT
From: Marc Portier

> 
> just dotting the i's and crossing the t's
> (don't want to be nagging)
> 
> Reinhard Pötz wrote:
> 
> <snip />
> 
> >   [D] All flow interpreters[3] are Avalon components and declared
> >       in the cocoon.xonf:
> >          
> >       <flow-interpreters default="[yourLanguage]" 
> logger="[yourLogger]">
> >         ... 
> >       </flow-interpreters>
> >       
> 
> our proposal was about having also non-interpreter 
> implementations of the 'generalized flow' concept
> 
> so while the xconf remark is totally valid, the link in the same 
> paragraph to our proposal might be a bit misleading...
> 
> >     
> > [3] I'm aware of Sylvain's and Marc's proposal on changing
> >     the scope of available controllers. I contacted Sylvain off-list
> >     and the said that they want to come up with a concrete 
> > implementation
> 
> - we felt the group not able to really conclude the discussion at 
> this point, and don't want to be the PITA that blocks releases.
> 
> - we think code will say more then the wiki write up:
> (while we do appear to make some 'theoretical' sense, and got 
> some people into the thinking apparently, I still can't shake off 
> the feeling that some still carry some YAGNI-feeling around this)
> 
> - we are committed to do our discussions, and status reporting 
> towards this implementation on this list hoping that the road to 
> it will be a helpful tutorial into our thinking here
> 
> >     of their proposal in the future and this should *not* influence
> >     the release of Cocoon 2.1 as the proposed changes would 
> only have
> >     a small impact on the *public* interfaces.
> > 
> 
> - we are convinced at this stage (and wil do our best to keep it 
> as such) that the impact on the public interfaces will be indeed 
> limited
> 
> - we are hoping on the other side that our lenient position at 
> this stage is not going to be cutting us back in re-considering 
> some of this in the future.

Thanks for the clarification!

Cheers,
Reinhard


Mime
View raw message